Grammarians and teachers would admit that modality is one of the most difficult areas to deal with in English grammar, and it is particularly difficult for learners of English to master this area of grammar. Modality can be achieved by different means (see, for example, Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Lyons, 1977; Quirk et al., 1985). The following examples illustrate modality by the use of words of various categories:

1. (1) Maybe you are right.

2. (2) You may be right.

3. (3) I think you are right.

4. (4) I am certain you are right.

The world Englishes (WEs) paradigm describes the spread of English in three concentric circles (Kachru, 1985) – the Inner Circle (e.g., the USA, UK, and Australia), the Outer Circle (e.g. India, Philippines, and Singapore), and the Expanding Circle (e.g. China, Indonesia, and Thailand). With Englishization and nativization outside the Inner Circle and the changing demographics of English users (e.g. non-native speakers [NNSs] considerably outnumber the native speakers [NSs] in the Inner Circle [Crystal, 1995; Graddol, 1999], the WEs research strongly advocates to recognize the NNS varieties. Until today, the WEs paradigm has not only posed challenges to, but also encouraged changes in, the language testing (LT) profession that has been traditionally relying on the Inner Circle standard (e.g., Kachru, 1985; Lowenberg, 2002; Davies, Hamp–Lyons & Kemp, 2003; Hu, 2012; Brown, 2014).

The last decade has witnessed a significant increase of research on English as a lingua franca (ELF) as today's world becomes progressively more globalized (Lei & Liu, 2018). However, studies on ELF in the Chinese contexts remain sparse although linguistic research in China has kept pace with the development of international linguistic academia. Moreover, many researchers studying ELF-informed teaching in China are either non-Chinese scholars or researchers working in countries other than China (Si, 2019). In other words, this newly emerged field of research has not yet been widely embraced by Chinese scholars, nor its paradigm has been promoted in English education while traditional native-English-based teaching has been challenged and initiatives have been taken to promote English education within the ELF paradigm in many countries in the expanding circle (see e.g., Sifakis & Tsantila, 2019). In this paper, we address the issue through identifying various hindrances to teaching ELF in Chinese classroom and analyzing the factors leading to the difficulties and problems with implementing the ELF-informed teaching in Chinese context. Following this, we explore the prospects for taking advantage of the pedagogical value of ELF research in the foreseeable future.

A student hovers over red-underlined text, clicks a button, and watches her errant writing replaced. The red line disappears. She continues typing, pausing to address the flagged words and phrases. When she stops typing, what appears before her is spotless – its errors coded out of existence by a modern grammar checker. Her teacher may never become aware of the artificial intelligence that has augmented her writing production. She submits her paper.

One of the problems of English spelling is the dual representation of the so-called ‘eyes’-words, rendered in discourse as -ise and -ize, both with high-frequency verbs such as modernise/modernize and rare coinages, as in burglarise/burglarize, etc. Eyes-words have historically evolved from two different language systems as two different forms with the same meaning, which have eventually come to coincide in their use in English with competing orthographic forms. The present paper first assesses the origin and development of the competition of these forms in the history of English from their introduction into English to their current configuration in British and American English; and then analyses their distribution in 13 varieties of English worldwide from the perspective of diatopic and text type variation. The study concludes, on the one hand, that the adoption of -ize in American English was an early 19th-century phenomenon while -ise spread in British English in the late 20th century; and, on the other, that the dissemination of -ize is constantly on the rise in many varieties, and the growing Americanisation of English, among others, is taken to be the most decisive element factor.

English as a foreign language education in East Asia has received repeated criticism for its lack of success in developing sufficient English oral proficiency among its students (Muller at al., 2014). In response to the criticism, the governments of China, Japan and South Korea attempted to include assessment of students’ speaking abilities as part of their high-stakes college entrance exams, hoping for positive washback effects in both primary- and secondary-school English education as well as on shadow education (i.e., non-formal private-sector education). These attempts often failed. In South Korea, a new test called the National English Ability Test (NEAT), which included direct assessment of students’ speaking skill among other skills, was developed in 2012. However, the government's plan to use NEAT to replace the current exam – the Korean College Scholastic Aptitude Test (KCSAT) – was quickly dropped before its implementation. In China, the government has tried to promote more communicative methods of English education through incorporating English speaking test in high-stakes tests such as the Gaokao – college admission tests – in addition to reducing the weight of English in the traditional paper-based exams. However, the policies have received heavy resistance at the regional level and have not been implemented at the national level. In Japan, the government asked universities to accept designated external proficiency tests as part of the Common Test, the existing college entrance exam, in order to make up for the exam's missing speaking component. After a mountain of criticism from test users, implementation of the plan is still pending. In this light, the aim of this paper is to discuss why these policy attempts failed. While these policy attempts occurred in three different contexts, we could see striking underlying commonalities. We argue that these policy attempts were made based on a set of beliefs separate from the reality of the stakeholders (e.g., students, parents and teachers). More specifically, the failures can be largely attributed to the governments’ monolithic view of the English language and their insufficient consideration for equity rather than equality.

In an interesting paper, Fong (2020) raises objections to my approach to English modals (and modality in general) which he views as too general and not fully compliant with the postulates of Construction Grammar. In this response paper, I intend to explain in some depth the benefits of my approach, as well as the reasons why Construction Grammar, in particular Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006, 2019), needs to be interrogated and adapted as a conceptual framework to explain language learning and processing.

There are two main ways to communicate messages linguistically: verbally and non-verbally. In verbal communication, the message is transmitted by means of such devices as stress, intonation and pausing. An example of stress is the word object which has differentmeanings when stresseddifferently, as in obˈject and ˈobject. The first is a verb which means ‘disagree’. The second is a noun which means ‘material thing’. An example of intonation is the expression What a beautiful day! which expresses different feelings when said with different intonations. With a fallingintonation, it is said perfunctorily. With a fall-riseintonation, it is said enthusiastically. With a rise-fall intonation, it is said sarcastically. An example of pausing is the expression Don't eat that honey. When the pause is after that, that refers to an object and honey refers to a person, meaning ‘darling’. When the pause is after honey, honey refers to an object. So, the listener is ordered not to eat the honey. These devices are extensively covered in Roach (2009), Carr (2012), Odden (2014) and Kennedy (2016), among others.

English is used as a lingua franca in most parts of the world (Ozaki, 2011). However, problems and issues related to learning English are country specific (Nagamine, 2011), because most of the difficulties in foreign language learning arise from L1 interference (Flege, 1995). Since this study focuses on acoustic analysis of a phonological feature of Pakistan English (PakE), we outline the historical background of the issue very briefly. Pakistan is a linguistically rich country. More than 70 languages are spoken in Pakistan (Rahman, 1996). Saraiki, Balochi, Sindhi, Punjabi and Pashto are the major indigenous languages of the country. More than 90% of the total population speaks these languages. Pakistan came into being in 1947. It inherited English as a language of education, law, the judiciary and media from the British colonial masters. The British rulers also used the English language in India for official correspondence. Therefore, English became a very effective tool and symbol of power in the subcontinent. As a result, people of the subcontinent feel pride in learning English. Although the colonial period has ended and the English rulers have departed to their homeland, English still remains the language of ruling elite in Pakistan and India.

A brief stroll about the cityscape of South Korea (henceforth ‘Korea’) testifies to Curtin's (2014) presumptive cosmopolitanism, whereby locals are expected to possess a high degree of competence in linguistically accommodating newcomers or world travellers by using English or other international languages in the linguistic landscape. One can easily spot English monolingual, Korean–English bilingual, and multilingual signs for ‘advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop[s] and . . . government buildings’ (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 25), helping visitors and new arrivals negotiate the environment without being literate in the local language, Korean. The current English-flooded linguistic landscape of urban areas is well described in J. S. Lee's (2016) study, in which an elderly interviewee confirms, ‘[E]verywhere you go, you see English – banks, markets, and things. When we go shopping these days, brand names and street signs are all in English’ (331).